Re: [PATCH] md: only unlock mddev from action_store

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 6/3/22 2:03 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:


On 2022-06-02 07:45, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
The 07reshape5intr test is broke because of below path.

     md_reap_sync_thread
             -> mddev_unlock
             -> md_unregister_thread(&mddev->sync_thread)

And md_check_recovery is triggered by,

mddev_unlock -> md_wakeup_thread(mddev->thread)

then mddev->reshape_position is set to MaxSector in raid5_finish_reshape
since MD_RECOVERY_INTR is cleared in md_check_recovery, which means
feature_map is not set with MD_FEATURE_RESHAPE_ACTIVE and superblock's
reshape_position can't be updated accordingly.

Since the bug which commit 8b48ec23cc51a ("md: don't unregister sync_thread
with reconfig_mutex held") fixed is related with action_store path, other
callers which reap sync_thread didn't need to be changed, let's

1. only unlock mddev in md_reap_sync_thread if caller is action_store,
    so the parameter is renamed to reflect the change.
2. save some contexts (MD_RECOVERY_INTR and reshape_position) since they
    could be changed by other processes, then restore them after get lock
    again.

Fixes: 8b48ec23cc51a ("md: don't unregister sync_thread with reconfig_mutex held")
Reported-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
---
I suppose the previous bug still can be fixed with the change, but it is
better to verify it. Donald, could you help to test the new code?

Thanks,
Guoqing

  drivers/md/md.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
  drivers/md/md.h |  2 +-
  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
index 5c8efef13881..3387260dd55b 100644
--- a/drivers/md/md.c
+++ b/drivers/md/md.c
@@ -6197,7 +6197,7 @@ static void __md_stop_writes(struct mddev *mddev)
  		flush_workqueue(md_misc_wq);
  	if (mddev->sync_thread) {
  		set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery);
-		md_reap_sync_thread(mddev, true);
+		md_reap_sync_thread(mddev, false);
  	}
del_timer_sync(&mddev->safemode_timer);
@@ -9303,7 +9303,7 @@ void md_check_recovery(struct mddev *mddev)
  			 * ->spare_active and clear saved_raid_disk
  			 */
  			set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery);
-			md_reap_sync_thread(mddev, true);
+			md_reap_sync_thread(mddev, false);
  			clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RECOVER, &mddev->recovery);
  			clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED, &mddev->recovery);
  			clear_bit(MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING, &mddev->sb_flags);
@@ -9338,7 +9338,7 @@ void md_check_recovery(struct mddev *mddev)
  			goto unlock;
  		}
  		if (mddev->sync_thread) {
-			md_reap_sync_thread(mddev, true);
+			md_reap_sync_thread(mddev, false);
  			goto unlock;
  		}
  		/* Set RUNNING before clearing NEEDED to avoid
@@ -9411,18 +9411,30 @@ void md_check_recovery(struct mddev *mddev)
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(md_check_recovery);
-void md_reap_sync_thread(struct mddev *mddev, bool reconfig_mutex_held)
+void md_reap_sync_thread(struct mddev *mddev, bool unlock_mddev)
  {
  	struct md_rdev *rdev;
  	sector_t old_dev_sectors = mddev->dev_sectors;
+	sector_t old_reshape_position;
  	bool is_reshaped = false;
+	bool is_interrupted = false;
- if (reconfig_mutex_held)
+	if (unlock_mddev) {
+		old_reshape_position = mddev->reshape_position;
+		if (test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery))
+			is_interrupted = true;
  		mddev_unlock(mddev);
+	}
  	/* resync has finished, collect result */
  	md_unregister_thread(&mddev->sync_thread);
-	if (reconfig_mutex_held)
+	if (unlock_mddev) {
  		mddev_lock_nointr(mddev);
+		/* restore the previous flag and position */
+		mddev->reshape_position = old_reshape_position;
+		if (is_interrupted)
+			set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery);
+	}
Maybe instead of the ugly boolean argument we could pull
md_unregister_thread() into all the callers and explicitly unlock in the
single call site that needs it?

After move "md_unregister_thread(&mddev->sync_thread)", then we need to
rename md_reap_sync_thread given it doesn't unregister sync_thread, any
suggestion about the new name? md_behind_reap_sync_thread?

Thanks,
Guoqing






[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux